The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently
decided whether it was considered a nuisance to block a neighbor’s view of a
golf course with trees.The case of Stibler v. The
Country Club, Inc., No. E2014-00743-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1093638 (Tenn. Ct. App.
2015)
is unique and has interesting facts.In
this situation the plaintiff filed suit against a country club that ran a golf
course because the country club planted trees that blocked the plaintiff’s (who
owned a neighboring property) view of the golf course.The court first considered whether the
planting of trees violated the covenants and restrictions for the subdivision.There was nothing in the actual covenants and
restrictions that were violated by the planting of these trees.As a result, the court next turned to the
issue of to whether blocking of a view to a golf course by planting trees is considered
nuisance under Tennessee law.

In the Stibler case at issue, it
was undisputed that the country club planted trees on its own property and that
the trees did not encroach on plaintiff’s property in any way.Further, these trees did not cause any
physical damage to the plaintiff’s property.The sole basis for plaintiff’s claim is that there was economic
damage caused to the plaintiff’s property resulting from the loss of a golf
course view.The Tennessee Court of
Appeals found that losing a view of an adjacent golf course on a country club’s
property due to the planting of trees is “simply insufficient to give rise to a
claim for nuisance.” Stibler at 4.Essentially, unless there is evidence of actual
encroachment onto the plaintiff’s property, imminent danger to the plaintiff’s
property or actual damage to the plaintiff’s property, then there simply is no
claim for nuisance with the simple blocking of a view by trees.

This case certainly has interesting facts
and these facts may seem to be relatively minor or insignificant.However, there are circumstances where this
can be a major issue for property owners.Recently in the news there has been
quite a bit of discussion about owners of property that is adjacent to Wrigley
Field in Chicago.The adjacent property owners sued the Chicago
Cubs because the Cubs are constructing a large video board and advertising
signs that will obstruct the view into the baseball field from adjacent
properties.These adjacent owners have
sold tickets on their rooftops because fans could see into the stadium for
baseball games.These adjacent owners
actually profit off watching Cubs games from their property.This is a much more financially significant
fact situation.However, in Tennessee,
apparently there is no claim for “nuisance” against adjacent homeowners that
blocks someone’s view of their property.I am not sure if this reasoning would hold if there was a clear economic
harm like the situation involving the Chicago Cubs.I tend to think the reasoning would be the
same and there would be no claim for nuisance in that situation.

Follow me on Twitter at @jasonaleefor updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.